-4-
On September 25, 2006, the Court called the case from the
calendar of cases set to be tried on the regular session of this
Court commencing on that date in San Francisco, California.
Counsel for respondent and counsel for petitioner made their
respective appearances. Upon the completion of the calendar
call, the parties were informed that they should be prepared to
try this case on September 26, 2006, at 9 a.m. When the
scheduled time for trial arrived, neither petitioner nor his
counsel was in the courtroom. Respondent was represented by his
counsel. The Court postponed the start of trial for 45 minutes
in expectation that either petitioner or his counsel would
appear. At 9:46 a.m., the Court recalled this case.
Respondent’s counsel appeared for respondent. Neither petitioner
nor his counsel made an appearance. Respondent moved to dismiss
the case for lack of prosecution, stating in part that petitioner
had been uncooperative throughout the proceeding and had not
stipulated any of the facts of this case. Respondent also
informed the Court that respondent believed that he bore a burden
as to the issues in this case and introduced the following five
exhibits into evidence:
(1) Exhibit 1-R: a document described as the payroll
summaries of Efeckta for the semimonthly pay periods in 2002 from
January 1 through July 15 and other payroll related records for
2002 through August 30;
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011